Mokosh

Mokosh (/ˈmɒkɒʃ/ ) is a Slavic goddess. No narratives survive to the present day about this deity and so scholars must rely on academic disciplines like philology to discern details about her.

Mokosh мокошь
Member of Vladimir's pantheon
Twenty-fifth page of Laurentian Codex with mention of the pantheon of Kyiv, 1377. The name of Mokosh is marked in red
Texts	Primary Chronicle and other, dependent texts
Gender	female

According to etymological reconstruction, Mokosh was the goddess of earth, waters and fertility, and later, according to most researchers, she was reflected in bylinas and zagovory as Mat Zemlya. Another reconstruction was made on the basis of ethnography: at the end of the 19th century, such names of kikimora as Mokusha or Mokosha were recorded in the Russian North. The coincidence is explained by the fact that kikimora is a demonized version of the goddess, and by approximating between the two, researchers have portrayed Mokosh as the goddess of love and birth, with a connection to the night, the moon, spinning, sheep farming and women's economy. Spinning was the occupation of various European goddesses of fate, which led to the characterization of Mokosh as a deity controlling fate. This reconstruction does not agree with the data on her etymology, which shows that the function of spinning could not have been the main one.

A wooden statue of Mokosh, along with other deities, was established by prince Vladimir the Great in 980 on one of Kyiv's hills. This event has been described by some historians as a manifestation of Vladimir's pagan reformation, but other scholars deny that such a reformation was carried out, and the question of its existence is debatable in modern scholarship. After the beginning of the christianization of Rus in 988, the statues of deities were destroyed. Mokosh is mentioned in various Words and Teachings against Paganism along with the vilas, but is not described in them in any way.

In scholarship, the opinion spread that the cult of Mokosh passed to the folk-Christian Paraskeva Friday, associated with water and spinning. Because of this identification, Friday began to be considered a day dedicated to the goddess, and a conclusion was drawn about the popularity of Mokosh among women in Christian times. In later studies, the idea of an approximation with Paraskeva is criticized because Paraskeva's association with spinning, water and Friday has Christian rather than pagan roots.

The Slavic version of the basic myth theory, based on various ethnographic and linguistic data, depicts Mokosh as Perun's wife. She cheats on him with Veles, causing Perun to kill Mokosh's children. The theory itself has not been recognized in scholarship. The supposition that Mokosh is depicted on the Zbruch Idol and on North Russian embroideries from the 19th century has also been rejected. Archaeologist Boris Rybakov's theory that the goddess' original name was Makosh has not been supported by other researchers.

Name and characteristics

The name Mokosh means a combination of earth and water, fertile moisture. Wet Meadow, Fyodor Vasilyev, 1872

In Old East Slavic texts, the name of the goddess is noted as Mokošĭ (мокошь), Mokŭšĭ (мокъшь) – in ancient texts uppercase was not used. According to Oleg Trubachyov, the form Mokŭšĭ was formed through the secondary adideation of *Mokošь and *kъšь "fate". Grammatically, the theonym Mokosh belongs to the feminine gender, from which it is inferred that the deity was specifically a goddess. In older studies and later chronicles she may appear as a male deity, but this variant is secondary to the original. According to the most reasonable etymology the theonym was formed by the suffixal method from the Proto-Slavic stem *mok- meaning "wet" with the suffix *-ošь. Vladimir Toporov and Vyacheslav Ivanov comment that this etymology is “indisputable”, understanding her name as "She who is wet". The first to put forward such an etymology was Vatroslav Jagić, believing that the theonym was a translation or also an amplification of the Greek word malakiya, and therefore Mokosh was a literary fiction. Toporov, Ivanov and Max Vasmer consider Jagić's position to be false.

Michał Łuczyński believes that the theonym may have appeared only after the 3rd century AD due to the occurrence of the [š] sound, which arose in Slavic languages as part of the first palatalization. He derives the name of the goddess from the unattested noun *mokošь "someone/something wet", since the suffix *-ošь forms the names of the bearers of features, and this noun he derives precisely from the v-tematic *moky (gen *mokъve) "wet place, mud" (cf. Polish dial. mokwa, Ukrainian mokva) and compares the name Mokosh to other names ending in -osh derived from v-thematic words with topographical meaning, e.g. Old Polish Bagosz (< *bagy), Narosz (< *nary). In connection with this etymology, he considers Mokosh to be a "pluvial goddess with uranic characteristics". Similarly, Valeriy Mokiyenko understands the theonym as deriving from a word meaning "moist, swampy place". Toporov, Ivanov and Łuczyński believe that the theonym Mokosh is merely a later epithet replacing the original unknown name of the deity. The etymology is compared by Ivanov and Toporov with Lithuanian makusyti "to splash", "to walk on mud"; makasyne "slush", "mud", "mixture", "mess".

Vasmer, as well as many modern scholars, consider Mokosh to be the goddess of fertility, waters and earth, which brings her closer to the later Mat Zemlya who is often mentioned in bylinas and zagovory. Aleksander Gieysztor comments that the association with Mat Zemlya is shared by most researchers. Mokiyenko and Henryk Łowmiański also suggest a connection with rain.

Linguist Andrey Zaliznyak and religious scholar Andrzej Szyjewski have liked Mokosh to the Iranian Anahita, as the latter is also called "Wet", "Broad". In a similar way, philologist Nikolay Zubov links her to the Scythian goddess of earth and water Api. On the basis of their approximation with Anahita, Toporov and Ivanov attribute the function of procreation to Mokosh and consider the goddess Zhiva as her "higher hypostasis", opposite to the "low hypostasis", that is Mokosh. Celtic scholar Viktor Kalygin likened Mokosh to the Irish goddess Macha, who he believes was originally a fertility goddess. He elevated the theonym Macha to *mokosiā, which "corresponds exactly to the name of the Slavic goddess Mokosh", but Celtic scholar Garrett Olmsted derives the theonym Macha from the Proto-Celtic *magos "plain, field".

Obsolete and questionable etymologies

Slavist Grigory Ilinsky put forward a hypothesis for the origin of the theonym based on parallels with the Baltic languages. According to him, the theonym Mokosh has a counterpart in Lithuanian in the words makstýti "to weave"; mèksti "to knit"; mãkas "purse", related to the Russian moshna "bag, purse", and thus theonym comes from Proto-Slavic *mokos- "spinning", "weaving". Toporov and Ivanov, who are proponents of the moisture etymology, "rehabilitate" Ilinsky's etymology, seeing a connection in the Lithuanian stems in the words mazgas "knot"; megzti "to knit", "to tie" with mazgoti "to wash". ESSJa and Martin Pukanec Martin Pukanec call Ilinsky's etymology "hypothetical".

Boris Rybakov considered Makosh to be a more correct reading of the goddess' name, dividing the theonym into two parts: ma- and -kosh, where ma- was short for mother (Old East Slavic мати, mati), approaching a certain Cretan-Mycenaean goddess named Ma in a people very distant from the Slavs. He understood the second part -kosh as an Old East Slavic word meaning "fate". Rybakov thus translates this theonym as "Mother of good fate", identifying her with the goddess of fate, and also at the same time as "Mother of good harvests", since fruit could be placed in the basket (see *košь), adding that Mokosh is also the goddess of fertility, as well as "Mother of luck", since, in his opinion, the harvest is luck. Leo Klejn, who sticks to the reconstruction of Mokosh as the goddess of women's labor, particularly spinning, criticizes Rybakov, noting that such functions are not supported by anything. The etymology is also criticized: mother can be shortened to ma mainly in the language of children. Klejn points out that in Russian compound words are constructed differently: the main noun stands at the end and the defining word at the beginning, and gives such examples as Bogo-matier and Daz-bog, so the expected form of a name would be *Koshma. The word is indeed found in Russian, but is of Tatar origin. The notation Makosh itself is not standard in chronicles, unlike Mokosh. ESSJa, Toporov, Ivanov reject Rybakov's etymology.

According to Nikolay Galkovsky, the name Mokosh was borrowed from an unknown source. Evgeny Anichkov believed that the name was derived from the ethnonym of a Finno-Ugric people, Mokshas, part of the Mordvins, which he believes explains why Vladimir the Great had to establish statues of Slavic gods: The gods of Vladimir's pantheon were of non-Slavic origin, where Perun was said to have been brought from Scandinavia as the personal god of the Rurikids, and other gods established by Vladimir, such as Mokosh, were gods of peoples neighboring the Slavs, whose statues were established by Vladimir to centralize his power. Anichkov compared Finnish toponyms such as Moksha, which is a right tributary of the Oka, Ropsha, Shapsha, Kapsha, Kiddeksha with the name of the goddess. Viljo Mansikka, on the other hand, believed that Mokosh was derived from the Finnish demon Moksha. Henryk Łowmiański, who had no doubts about the Slavic etymology, considers the demon Moksha to be most likely a loan from the Slavs, or that the sound similarity is coincidental; Gieysztor also considered the demon to be a loan. Later researchers Nikolaĭ Mokshin and Zubov denied the Finno-Ugric origin of Mokosh. Toporov, Iwanov and ESSJa share a similar point of view. Mikhail Vasilyev believes that the connection with the Finnish ethnonym Moksha is coincidental, while the very "affiliation of Mokosh with Slavic paganism is indisputable".

Etymologies connecting theonym with Sanskrit makhas "rich", "noble", or, according to Natalya Guseva, moksha "liberation", "death" are questionable. Relationship with Ancient Greek mákhlos "lustful", "violent", with Old Lithuanian kekše "prostitute", Avestan maekantis "tree sap" also. Thracian origin of Mokosh is also doubtful. Gieysztor called the etymology of Vittore Pisani, who considered the theonym to be a word composed of the roots mot- "to spool, to reel" and -kos "abundance", "unbelievable".

Onomastics

In Slovene language spotted crake is also called mokoš, and in Russian regionalisms chyortova kurica, lit. "devil's hen"

Contemporary coat of arms of the village of Mokošín in the Czech Republic, which may be named after Mokosh

There are onomastic data that can be linked to Mokosh: the Croatian masculine surname and given name Mokoš, the masculine terms makesh, mokesh in the Russian proverb Bog ne makesh, chem-nibud da poteshit; mokush "rusalka"; mokosha "troublesome person"; in Yaroslavl region mokosha "phantom, ghost". In Tver and Novgorod regions mokshit "to cry, beg for something". In Novgorod meaning "to obsessively demand something, to pester with requests" is also attested. Russian dialects include the words mokosya "foolish, stupid woman", "whore, hussy" and Mokrosh, Mokresh meaning the constellation Aquarius. Belarusian family.Mokish Proper noun Mokosha, Makosha Khlopun attested in Pskov's census book from 1585 belonging to cannon maker.

Toponyms: Czech village Mokošín, attested since 11th century, and hill Mokošin Vrch; Sorbian Мосоcize, Mockschiez; Polish Mokoszyn, Mokosznica, Mokossko, Mokos; located near Stralsund in Germany in the former Polabian lands, the Old Polabian toponym Muuks, Mukus attested in 1310; Croatian Mokosica near Dubrovnik, mountain Mukoša near Marloh and smaller mountains Mukos, Mokoš and Mokos; Macedonian Mukos; Mokoshinsky monastyr in Russia in Chernihiv Oblast, swampy area Mokoshino boloto in Belarus. There was a wasteland or lye called Mokoshevo in Cherepovetsky Uyezd noted by ethnographer Mikhail Gerasimov. It is likely that the onomastics materials speak of the Proto-Slavic antiquity of the goddess, or the toponyms are derived from *mokosъ "floodplain meadow" or directly from the stem root *mok-. Zubov points out that in light of the word mokosha as a term for a troublesome person, the relationship with Mokosh becomes problematic. Ilyinsky lists a number of toponyms similar to the theonym, but denies their kinship, recognizing toponyms derived from the root *mok- "to (get) wet", from words makushka, mak "poppy" and from dialectal form of given name Maximus: Mokey. Linguist Stanisław Urbańczyk considers the correlation of toponyms with Mokosh to be questionable.

Toporov associates with Mokosh a character from a Slovenian fairy tale called Mokoška, Mokuška, Mokoška, also known as Lahnwaberl or Lamwaberl. Story was recorded by Davorin Trstenjak who heard it from Rudolfa Gustava Puffa in Lower Styria. Record by Trstenjak from 1855:

Lamwaberl used to live in Grünau, a marshy place not far away from Šent Florjan Square, near the Ložnica that often overf lowed its banks. Archaeological artefacts confirm that in the olden times the place had been cultivated. A lone farming estate is situated there now, but once upon a time there stood the castle of Mokoška, a heathen princess who lived in it. The castle was surrounded by gardens that were always green. She occasionally helped people but sometimes also harmed them; she was especially wont to taking children with her. At long last, God punished her. On a stormy night, the castle and all its gardens sank into the ground. But Mokoška was not doomed. She continued to appear, disguised in different female forms. She still carries off children, especially those who have been neglected by their parents.

Sources

Old East Slavic sources

Mokosh is mentioned in the concerning year 980 account of the Primary Chronicle from the beginning of the 12th century, the oldest copy of which is part of the Laurentian Codex of 1377. Fragment:

And Vladimir began to reign alone in Kiyv. And he placed idols on the hill outside the palace: a Perun in wood with a silver head and a gold moustache, and Khors Dazhbog and Stribog and Simargl and Mokosh. And they offered sacrifices and called them gods, and they took their sons and daughters to them and sacrificed them to the devils. And they profaned the earth with their sacrifices, and Rus’ and that hill were profaned by blood.

– Primary Chronicle

In historiography, this event is known as the pagan reform or the first religious reform of Vladimir. One point of view, considering the reform, treats it as a transition to monotheism: according to philologist Viljo Mansikka and historians Aleksey Shakhmatov and Henryk Łowmiański, initially there was only Perun in the Primary Chronicle, and later other gods were added to make Vladimir a polytheist. The philologist Anichkov shared Shahmatov's position, although he noted that "there is no objective data to recognize this insertion". Historian Evgeny Anichkov points out that the existence of the Kyiv pantheon is recorded in parallel sources. Another historian, Leo Klejn, denies the existence of the reform, considering the event merely a reintroduction of paganism: the idols were erected immediately after the assassination of Yaropelk, who had sympathies for Christianity and pursued a pro-Christian policy, and after the enthronement of Vladimir. The Perun's idol itself was already standing on a hill in Kyiv at the home of prince Igor.

It has been debated in the past that the passage in the text about "bringing their sons and daughters" reflects either human sacrifice or merely indicates participation in a ritual. Modern scholars consider the text from "And they offered" to "and that hill" and beyond to be a paraphrase of Psalm verses (Psalm 106:35–44). Nevertheless, Vasilyev still considers the existence of frequent human sacrifices for the Kyiv pantheon as a historical fact, but according to historian Pavel Lukin the issue of human sacrifices as well as the reform itself is debatable, and the text about Vladimir's reform is merely a reworking of the Chronicle of George Hamartolos, which mentions the creation of six idol gods of deities with Belphegor leading and one female figure, Astarte. According to the Chronicle, the materials used to make the idols were gold and silver, and defiled earth is also mentioned. Lukin concludes that the story of Vladimir's pantheon and human sacrifices is a chronicler's construction created in the 1170s, and the names of the deities were taken from oral tradition known to the chronicler.

Among the deities established by Vladimir, Mokosh was the only goddess. Philologist Nikolay Zubov believes that "according to the generally accepted opinion, in the circle of Vladimir's pantheon, this is the most mysterious figure".

Theodore the Varangian and his son John were to be sacrificed to the gods of the Kyiv pantheon. Miniature from the Radziwiłł Chronicle, late 15th century.

The chronicle then tells how the elders and boyars decided to cast lots to kill a boy or girl as a sacrifice to the gods. In Kyiv lived a Christian and Varangian, Fyodor, who had a son John, according to the chronicle, "beautiful in face and soul", upon whom fate had fallen. Emissaries came to Fyodor, saying that his son had been chosen by the gods and should be sacrificed. Fyodor dismissed the Kyiv statues as gods, pointing out that they were made of wood. The envoys told the people all about it, and, taking up arms, they trashed Fyodor's courtyard and ordered him, as he stood in the hallway with his son, to give his son to the gods. In response, Varangian said that the gods themselves could send someone from their own circle to take his son from him, whereupon the people cut down the hallway, and Fyodor and John were killed. The appearance of the story of the Varangians in the Primary Chronicle is a later addition that probably first appeared in the First Corpus of the 1190s. The chronicle entry itself was based on a possibly existing original story about the Varangians, an early short synaxarion record in memory of locally honored saints, which was written specifically to glorify the first Rus' martyrs. The Primary Chronicle's account used a version already revised and supplemented with some unreliable details, but without the names of the Varangians, which were unknown to the compiler of the Chronicle's account. Among the misrepresentations is the location of the death of the Varangians. The existence of human sacrifices among the Slavs is recorded by various sources. Therefore, as archaeologists Irina Rusanova and Boris Timoshchuk wrote, "the information about human sacrifices among the Eastern Slavs [...] can hardly be considered accusations and propaganda against paganism" and that "no special cruelty can be seen in the custom of human sacrifices among the Slavs. These sacrifices were conditioned by the worldview of the time and were used for the good and salvation of society". Human sacrifices were made under certain circumstances, and bloodless sacrifices were the most common.

After Vladimir baptized Rus in 988, he ordered the idols to be overthrown: some chopped up, others burned. He built St. Basil's Church on the spot where the idols stood. In 1975, the foundations of the building were found during excavations on Old Kyiv Mountain. Archaeologist Boris Rybakov recognized the structure as the site of Kyiv's pantheon, claiming that it had "clearly marked five projections of different sizes: one large one in the middle, two smaller ones on the sides and two very small ones near the side projections...". Subsequent researchers have criticized Rybakov's statement. The kapishche (outdoors templte) itself has not been discovered by archaeologists, nor has any evidence of human sacrifice in Kyiv.

After the adoption of Christianity, various sermons against the old religion appeared. In particular, the Sermon by One Who Loves Christ was written, according to most scholars, in the mid-11th century. The exceptions are Mansikka, who claims the Sermon was written in the 14th century, and Rusanova and Timoshchuk, who date it to the 12th century. The Sermon itself is available in two editions: a short, original edition and a long, later edition. Fragment from the late 14th century edition of the Paisios' list of the collection:

As Elijah the Tishbite, having cut the throats of three hundred idolatrous prophets and priests, said: “I burn with zeal for my Lord God Almighty”, so he, too being unable to bear Christians who live a double faith and believe in Perun and Khors, Mokosh, Sim and Rgl and in the Vily, who number thirty ninth sisters, —so say ignorant people who consider them goddesses—and thus give them offerings and cut the throats of hens and pray to fire, calling it Svarozhits. [...] Therefore, Christians must not hold demonic festivities, meaning dancing, music and profane songs, and offerings to the idols, who with fire under the fields of sheaves pray to the Vily, to Mokosh, and Sim and Rgl, to Perun, Rod, the Rozhanitsy and all the like.

– Sermon by One Who Loves Christ and Is a Jealous Defender of the Righteous Faith

Slavist Nikolay Galkovsky, due to the fact that the vilas are noted next to Mokosh, believes that they are related to the goddess, but according to historian Igor Danilevsky, the author of the Word used some unknown South Slavic source from which he took information about the vilas, mythological figures of the South Slavs. In his opinion, the Eastern Slavs themselves did not worship vilas. Similarly, Mansikka believes that the vilas and Mokosh were taken from the text Vopros, chto yest' trebokladen'ye idol'skoye, which he considers South Slavic. According to Anichkov, the original version of the Sermon said nothing about deities and they were added by later editors. Anichkov's opinion is shared by Mansikka, who believes that the list of deities comes from the Primary Chronicle. On this basis, historian Vladimir Petukhin concludes that the insert with the mention of deities appeared no earlier than the 12th century. Since the name Simargl is spelled as Sim and Regl, the author of the Word may not have understood which characters were being referred to.

Mokosh is mentioned in the Old Rus' work Sermon by Saint Gregory, which is a reworking of the 4th century teaching of Constantinople patriarch Gregory of Nazianzus. The unknown Old Rus' author used the condemnation of the Greek gods, supplementing it with a text condemning the Slavic gods. An early edition of the Sermon is preserved in three handwritten copies from the 15th century and is variously dated by different researchers: the 1060s (Anichkov), the 12th century (Łowmiański, Rybakov), as well as dates considered unlikely by Vasilyev: late 13th - early 14th century (Slavists Sreznevsky, Galkovsky), 14th century (Mansikka). According to Rybakov, Sermon by Saint Gregory was a direct translation, but Danilevsky points out that the Word only partially reflects the Greek original. The original is called On the Theophany. Danilevsky notes that it is not known exactly which variant of Gregory Nazianzin's text was used by the Old Russian author himself. It is also unknown how reliable the information about Slavic gods contained in the Sermon is. Excerpt from the Novgorod Sophia Library manuscript No. 1295 from the 15th century:

To those gods the Slavic people makes offerings too, and to vily, and Mokosh, Diva, Perun, Khors, Rod and Rozhanitsy, to the vampires and to the beregyni, and to Pereplut, for whom they drink in horns while pouring around. [...] The Taurian sacrifices made by the first born sons to the idols, the sacrificial blood of the Laconians spilt from wounds, which is their punishment, and with which they bathed the goddess, Yecate, whom they considered a virgin. And they worship Mokosh, and Kyla, and Malakiya, that is masturbation, saying: Buyakini. [...] Following holy baptism, they rejected Perun, but even after accepting Christ, in the border areas they still pray to the accursed Perun, and to Khors, and Mokosh and vil. And they do it secretly...

– Sermon by Saint Gregory, Found in the Comments, on How the Ancient Nations, When Pagan, Worshipped Idols and Offered Sacrifices to Them, and Continue to Do So Now

Mansikka notes that the meaning of the word Diva is unknown. Perhaps it is a literal translation of the Greek Δἰος (Dios), or the text should be read as Mokosh-Deva ("Mokosh-Virgin"). According to Danilevsky, what was meant was the [masculine] Div. Zubov comments that there is also an opinion that considers Diva to be the feminine version of Div, but analyzing the text, he concludes that the more correct variant is Mokosh-Deva, despite the original Дивѣ (Divě (dat)), instead of the expected *Дѣвѣ (*Děvě (dat)). The schoolar attributes this to the Novgorodian origin of Sermon and the fact that in the dialect the sound [ѣ] can turn into [i]. Thus, the term "Diva" becomes an epithet-definition of Mokosh "according to the Hellenistic model", regardless of whether Mokosh was a virgin in the original pagan depictions. In favor of this interpretation, according to the scholar, is the fact that the word Diva is not mentioned anywhere else. Rybakov and Zubov define Yecate as Hekate, believing that the author of the Sermon saw some parallels between Hekate and Mokosh. The term malakiya is of Greek origin and means onanism. From its proximity to Mokosh, Ilyinsky concludes that Mokosh was associated with sexual activity. Slavist Aleksander Brückner rejected the identification of Mokosh with malakiya, as the text shows that they are two different things. According to Mansikka, "and they worship Mokosh, and Kyla" is an insertion made on the basis of the consonance of Mokosh with malakiya. Danilevsky literally translates the word Kyla as "hernia", but he himself believes, as do many other scholars, that it is more likely to be considered a distortion of the word vila. Galkovsky viewed buyakini as a vila, which he associated with Mokosh. The term buyakini is associated by Leo Klejn with the words buy, buyvishche, meaning "pogost", "cemetery", and the buyakini themselves, if not a copyist's error, are understood by Klejn as participants in funeral rites who practiced orgiastic rituals. In Klejn's reconstruction, Perun was a dying-and-rising god, and these rituals were a sacred drama of resurrecting a dead god or his reincarnation, and the purpose of the buyakini was not onanism, but the extraction of semen for ritual purposes. Danilevsky points out, however, that the Greek original says "in honor of bliss and fearlessness", where the latter word was translated as buyestʹ "courage", and the form buyakini appeared only as a result of consonance (in relation to malakini). Anichkov believes that the text consists of late insertions.

The philologist Nikolai Tikhonravov, in the fourth volume of Chronicles of Russian Literature and Antiquity, cites the text Vopros, chto yest' trebokladen'ye idol'skoye in Moscow synodal manuscript No. 954 from the 14th century, fol. 33; Galkovsky did not find this text and concluded that either Tikhonravov was mistaken or the manuscript numbers had been changed. Excerpt:

He is not speaking to pagans, but to peasants. Many Christians set meals for idols and fill cups for demons. Who are these idols? The first idol is the rozhanitsa. The great prophet Isaiah speaks of them, crying out in a loud voice: Oh, woe to those who set a meal for the rozhanitsa and fill cups for the demons! The other [meal] is given to the vilas and Mokosh, and they do not pray openly, but secretly call on idolatrous women; and not only poor people, but also the wives of rich husbands. Using the troparion of the holy Theotokos during an idolatrous meal is very bad.

– Vopros, chto yest' trebokladen'ye idol'skoye

Linguists Vladimir Toporov and Vyacheslav Ivanov distinguish the category of idol worshippers as the priestesses of Mokosh, but in turn Zubov concludes: the text is a reference to the Sermon of Isaiah, and the vilas and Mokosh are a contemporaneous insertion close to Sermon by Saint Gregory.

The work Sermon by the Holy Father Saint John Chrysostom is a compilation and is based specifically on Sermon by Saint Gregory. Generally, the text dates to the 13th century, and historian Igor Danilevsky dates it to the end of the 11th century, and is known from the manuscript from St. Sophia Cathedral of Veliky Novgorod No. 1262 from the 14th-15th centuries and other copies. Excerpt according to the oldest of these:

Men who have forgotten the fear of God from neglect by renouncing baptism, approach idols and start to make sacrifices to the thunder and lightning, the sun and moon, and others, to Perun, Khors, the vily and Mokosh, to vampires and the beregyni, whom they call three times nine sisters. And others believe in Svarozhits and Artemid, to whom ignorant men pray. They sacrifice cockerels to them.

– Sermon by the Holy Father Saint John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on How the First Pagans Believed in Idols

In the Life of Vladimir preserved in the Bulgarian oldest copy from the 13th century, after the story of Vladimir's baptism in Kherson, it is said: "And he came to Kyiv, beating the idols of Perun, Khurs, Dazhbog and Mokosh and other idols". The work goes back to Primary Chronicle.

In the Hypatian Codex, under the date 1071, we read that “at the same time” a volkhv appeared in Kyiv to whom five deities appeared. He claimed that within five years the Dnieper would begin to flow backwards, and the Rus' land would "pass" into the hands of the Greeks. Scholars equated these deities with the Kyiv pantheon, in which they believed there were six. Explaining this contradiction, Anichkov excluded Mokosh from this list, as he considered her a borrowed deity. Łowmiański also excluded Mokosh because he was of the opinion that she was originally a demon and was added later to the Vladimir pantheon, while Rybakov rejected Simargl. Vasilyev explains this by the fact that Dazhbog bore the double name of Dazhbog-Khors. However, Petrukhin believes that the prophecy of the volkhv in Kyiv is not due to traces of paganism, but events in 1068-1069, when rebellious peasants threatened the princes to burn the city and go to the land of Greece. "Five gods" were the five planets whose astrological position and referred to by the magician.

An annalistic edition of The Tale of the Battle with Mamai, written perhaps in the early 15th century, describes Mamai's defeat: "The impious ... King Mamai, seeing his destruction, began to call upon his gods: Perun, Salavat, Mokosh and Gursa". Here the form of Mokosh's name is given in the masculine gender. In the main and most widely circulated editions of the Tale, the god Mokosh is absent. Vasilyev notes that the list of gods is most similar to their list in the Sermon by the Holy Father Saint John Chrysostom.

Sources from the 16th-17th centuries

Christian propagandistic depiction of Mokosh, Georg A. Schleissing, La Religion ancienne et moderne des Moscovites, 1698

There are Polish chronicles relating to East Slavic paganism and mentioning Mokosh, but researchers consider them secondary, as they are based on Old East Slavic sources. In the 16th-century work De origine et rebus gestis Polonorum libri XXX by historian Martin Kromer, Mokosh is mentioned among other gods as Mocosi. In the Chronicle of the historian Maciej Stryjkowski, published in 1582, in a list of gods whose names are passed down in distorted form, Mokosh is noted as Makosz. Mansikka notes that the chronicle itself was compiled from other Polish sources and contains "some fantasies and fabrications".

According to one of the confessional questions in the 16th century Rule of Saint Sava, the priest had to ask: "Have you wandered with impious women and prayed to the vilas, and Rod, and the rozhanitsy, and Perun, Khors, Mokosh, and drank and ate?". Three years of penance with bowing was imposed for the aforementioned sin. According to Anichkov, the mention of Perun, Chors and Mokosh was added as an insertion. The same question was included in the work K posledovaniyu i ispovedaniyu knyazem, boyaram i vsem pravoslavnym khristianam dukhovnym ottsom from the early 16th century, where two years of penance were imposed for a positive answer to this question. The 16th century Khudom nomokanuntse asks: “Did you go to Mokusha?". Many researchers believe that under the term Mokusha means "witch doctor". Akhnikov explained it with the word mokshitʹ "to beg, to whine", changed to "to enchant", "to conjure". According to ethnographer Elpidifor Barsov, in the Khudom sel'skom nomokanuntse he possessed, the question was: "Did you go to Mokosha?". Shakhmatov refers to an unpublished Word on the Beginning of the Rus' Land in the 16th century inventory of the Rumyantsev Museum No. 358, where the sentence "and Prince Vladimir came to crush the idols of Mokosh and others" is found.

A work from a collection dating back to the 16th century, which publisher Izmail Sreznevsky calls The Spiritual Instruction of Children, and historian Dmitri Schoeppingk calls Sermon of Saint John Chrysostom, contains the following instruction:

Hide yourselves from God invisible, people praying to the lineage and rodzanice, Perun and Apollo, and Mokosha and peregynia, and do not approach any god, nor any vile sacrifices.

Mansikka believes that the names of mythological figures come from a certain work condemning pagans, close to the Sermon by Saint Gregory.

The chapter On the idols of Vladimir from the Piskari manuscript No. 153 of the late 17th century lists the statues installed by Vladimir. This work is not original and ancient, as it was based on the chapter On the idols from the Kievan Synopsis, probably created by the historian Innocent Gizel. The chapter On the idols of Vladimir is similar in content to the text On the idols of Rus' in the Hustyn Chronicle of 1670. Both chapters were written under the influence of Polish chronicles and contain the names of the gods in a distorted form. Excerpt from Piskari manuscript no. 153:

Also other idols were many, by name Outlad or Oslad, Korsh or Khors, Dashub or Dazhb, Strib or Stribog, Simargl or Simurgl, and Makosh or Mokosh; to them, to the demons, the ignorant people, like to a God, offered sacrifices and praises. This abomination prevailed throughout the state of Vladimir.

The Hustyn Chronicle similarly lists the gods, including Mokosh. Mansikka writes that these chronicles are more detailed than the original, and notes that the scribe chose to supplement them with his own notes and insertions. All three works eventually return to Primary Chronicle.

The Sermon from the Holy Gospel in manuscript No. 784 from the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius lists sins of the body and soul. Among the sins of the soul are mentioned:

[To] learn astronomy and believe in casting [spells] and in false writings, and in Hellenistic books, and in fairy tales, and in ustryatsu, and in Mokosh, and in snosudets, divination by birds, in thunder and in kolyada, and in all the martoloi and damned who make evil days and hours.

There is a variant where in place of Mokosh is the word basket kosh "fate", according to Rybakov the word Mokosh instead of kosh was just a scribe's error, and he translates the words snosudets, ustryatsu and martoloi as "volkhovnik", "divination" and "astrologers", respectively. Anichkov considered the words ustryatsu and Mokosh to be insertions.

In the Ukrainian Life of Vladimir of the XVII century among the list of his gods Mokosh is recorded as Moksha. In the Ukrainian Prologue Life of Vladimir from the manuscript of the Rumyantsev Museum No. 325 of the XVII century tells how Vladimir beat his gods, among them the deity Moksha, and drowned them in the Dnieper. This work, like Life of Vladimir, goes back to the Primary Chronicle.

Attempts at reconstruction

Slavist Grigoriy Ilyinsky concluded that ancient Rus' sources do not provide any information except the name of Mokosh. In his opinion, toponymic traces are equally unreliable and explanatory, and some conclusions about the nature of the goddess can be drawn only on the basis of folklore and ethnographic evidence. Later, philologist Aleksandr Strakhov wrote that the features of Mokosh, like the rest of the pagan pantheon, are known "not from medieval sources, but from numerous reconstructions and observations of scholars-bellerists of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Early studies

In early scholarly literature, Mokosh was considered in various ways: Slavist Pyotr Preys compared Mokosh with Astarte, Slavist Lubor Niederle likened her to Aphrodite. Ethnographer M. Nikiforovsky considered her the goddess of winds and water. According to historian Dmitri Schoeppingk, Mokosh's functions were transferred to Saint Elijah because he is called "wet". Slavist Nikolai Galkovsky assumed that since Mokosh is mentioned together with the vilas (which, according to him, are called buyakini in the Sermon by Saint Gregory), Mokosh herself was merely the spirit of the deceased residing in the water. Archaeologist Aleksandr Velikhanov, referring to Sanskrit, concluded that Mokosh and Simargl were one and the same deity. Slavist Vatroslav Jagić did not consider her a deity at all. Folklorist Alexander Krappe likened Mokosh to the biblical Moloch. In History of Russia, historian Vasily Tatishchev stated: "Mokos, the god of cattle". Galkovsky claimed that the Czechs had a rain and moisture deity with a similar name, to whom they offered prayers and sacrifices in times of severe drought. Archaeologist Boris Rybakov notes that Galkovsky does not refer to the source of this information. In 1839, ethnographer Żegota Pauli claimed that the Czechs and Moravians had a deity called Makosla, Makosh, Mokosh, worshipped by them in times of drought. He compared this deity to Mokosh, while referring to it as Mokta or Moksha, and considered them the same rain deity.

Mokosh and Mokosha, Mokusha

See also: Kikimora

Spinner. Portrait of the Russian painter Nikolay Dubovskoy, 1870

According to ethnographic data, a reconstruction of the function of the goddess was carried out. At the end of the 19th century, in the journal "Zhivaya starina", ethnographer Mikhail Gerasimov published ethnographic data from the Cherepovetsky Uyezd, which noted the villagers beliefs about a demon and domovoy by the name of Mokoshá. Later, Gerasimov denied that Mokosha was a domovoy. She lives in every hut in the babiy kut and is imagined as a woman with a big head and long arms. Mokosha likes to spin sliver at night, left by women without prayer. That is why there is a prohibition in the village of Bolshoy Dvor in Dmitrovsky District: "Don't leave your linen, or Mokosha will spin it". Ethnographer Elpidifor Barsov provided information from the Olonets Governorate about the belief in a spirit called Mókusha, who goes among the people during Great Lent, spinning wool at night and shearing sheep. When unsheared sheep scrape out their excess wool, it was said, "Oh, Mokusha has sheared the sheep". When they sleep, and the spindle "whirrs", it is said: "Mokusha spun". When Mokusha leaves the house, she might slam the spindle into bunk and beam. The offering to her was to put a piece of wool in the shears for the night. If Mokusha is not satisfied, she can cut off some of the housewives' hair. This image of an impure force corresponds to the kikimora, whose depictions are widespread mainly in the Russian North and who is sometimes understood as a domovoy. She is described as an ugly woman whose main habitat is the home. She uses objects to make sounds and acts at night when people are sleeping. She is deterred by prayer. The kikimora's main occupation is harming householders and spinning. She can shear sheep, but she does it badly and can be appeased with a special sacrifice. Many other mythological figures of folk Christianity are associated with spinning: Saint Barbara, Theotokos, Paraskeva Friday, notsnitsa and rusalka. In particular, a rusalka could be called мókush; demons could be called mokosh, mokush. In the Yaroslavl Governorate, an "economic, troublesome man" could be referred to as a mokoshá, while in the Vyatka Governorate a "hardworking person" was called a shishimory. Kikimora was also known in Novgorod and Vologda Governorate as mokrukha, as she left a wet mark at the spinning site.

Based on the consonance of the names, Gerasimov and Barsov conclude that Mokosh, Mokosha and Mokusha are identical. This proposal was supported by a number of other researchers, who attributed various functions to Mokosh: love, birth, connection with the night, spinning, raising sheep and the feminine sphere. Among them were linguist Max Vasmer and historian Leo Klejn. Barsov himself believed that Mokosh was associated with sheep farming, wool, yarn, female braids and the feminine sphere in general, and that she was a companion of Veles. According to Ilyinsky, she is the goddess of spinning, weaving and other household chores, and the patroness of matchmaking, marriage and sexual relations, "weaving" meaning bringing lovers together. Linguist Vladimir Toporov, in an attempt to explain the resemblance to kikimora, argued that there was a demonization of the goddess, which reduced her to the level of kikimora. Philologist Nikolai Zubov brought Mokosh and kikimora closer together through the second element in the latter's name: -mora, which he believes goes back to the Proto-Slavic stem *mor- and can mean "swamp, standing water". Through the functions of spinning and fate, a connection has been suggested with similar deities: the Germanic Norns, the Greek Moirai and the Baltic goddess Laima. Zubov suggested a connection between Mokosh and the moon, since in European folklore the moon can be associated with spinning and procreation. According to him, long-armedness is associated with the epithet “long-armed” of Iranian gods and rulers, prince Yuri Dolgorukiy and the princes of Chernigov, who may have borne this nickname. Marina Vlasova suggests a connection between Mokosh and the rusalkas and the Theotokos, although she notes that "it is difficult to characterize with sufficient precision the relationship between the images of Mokosh and Mokosha spinning at home".

Historian Henryk Łowmiański and linguist Stanisław Urbańczyk made the opposite reconstruction, believing that Mokosh was originally a demon in the 10th-11th centuries, and Nikon of Caves himself included her in the annalistic pantheon of Primary Chronicle as an insert due to the lack of information about the real gods. In keeping with Łowmiański's idea, Nikon included the names of the deities surrounding him in Tmutarakan, as well as the name of Mokosh, who in Slavic lands was "held in great esteem as a demon". However, historian Vladimir Petrukhin points out that Tmutarakan was not a source of pagan syncretism, remaining a Greek and Christian city.

Philologist Evgeny Anichkov believed that the name Mokoshá is of Finno-Ugric origin. The name Mokoshá, according to linguists Toporov and Ivanov, may be an deverbal formation from the Proto-Slavic *mok-oši-ti, understood by them to mean "to bustle, to potter, to putter", but this hypothesis has not been supported and the word probably has a later Russian origin.

Although many scholars have linked etymological and ethnographic reconstructions, subsequent researchers have noted that they do not relate to each other in any way. Łowmiański criticized that for this reason the function of spinning could not be the main one.

Łuczyński's reconstruction

Based on information about "going to Mokosh" as an oracle or fortune teller, Łuczyński interprets Mokosh as the goddess of fate and destiny. This is to be confirmed by dialect dictionaries, which often record the phrase "to go to [a oracle]". He treats Russian saying, "God is not Mokosh, [he] consoles with something", as an antithesis, i.e. Mokosh is the one who "consoles", i.e. gives luck, good fortune. She was also supposed to rule the weather, i.a. rain, as an extension of her rulership over fate. The depiction of Mokosh in the dialects of Russia (including the vocabulary of the Old Believers) reflects the goddess' association with birth and the determination of fate for the newborn. In addition, Mokosh was associated with household, feminine activities; she was the patroness of women, probably married women in particular, as indicated by the information that it was married women who were "visiting" Mokosh, which could express the psychosocial context of the worship of this goddess. Based on the above characteristics, Łuczyński concludes that the closest counterpart to Mokosh was the Baltic Laima – she was associated with water, and fate (when Laima was on a hill, she foretold good fate, when she was in the marshes, by the water, she was supposed to foretold bad fate; Latvian toponyms includes the hydronyms Lainuma-zers "Laima's lake", lainuma-purvs "Laima's swamp"), divination (the Rambynas stone, used to foretell the future, was Laima's "house"), and the birth of children and determining their fate. The only function of Laima that Mokosh does not have is the patronage of agriculture.

Comparison with Paraskeva Friday

Main articles: Paraskeva Friday and Saint Nedelya

According to an outdated reconstruction, the cult of Mokosh was reflected in the Christian cult of Paraskeva Friday. A stained glass window of Paraskeva of the Balkans from Church of Saint George in Smederevo

It was later suggested that Mokosh was related to Paraskeva Friday (Russian: Paraskeva Pyatnitsa): days such as Friday and Wednesday were associated with the Passion of Jesus and were accompanied by fasting and folk Christian bans on work, especially women's work: prohibition of spinning, sewing, washing, dishwashing, etc. There were also bans on children and marital relations. The ban on spinning extended to Sunday and Friday, which was called “bloody day” in Polesia and was widely considered an unlucky time. In folk Christianity, Pyatnitsa was personified as a mythical female figure. The same was true of Wednesday and Sunday. These personifications fulfilled the same functions as the Pyatnitsa. The prohibitions were motivated by a number of considerations related to the threat of harm to the spinner herself, her family, and her ancestors in the hereafter. For example, according to beliefs recorded in Polesia, Pyatnitsa in the form of a woman with loose hair would torture whoever broke the ban by suffocating them in his sleep. According to another belief, in the "next world" spindles will enter the mouth and eyes. A ban on spinning on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday has also been reported in various places.

The mythological Friday has been correlated with Paraskeva Pyatnitsa, whose cult developed from that of the saints Paraskeva of Iconium and Paraskeva of the Balkans, whose names (from Byzantine Greek Paraskeuḗ) translate as "Friday". In addition to Friday's prohibitions and injunctions, and its association with spinning, Paraskeva was associated with marriage and childbearing, as well as with curing diseases and water springs, because of which she was called the "mother of earth and water". There are legends of an icon of Paraskeva appearing in a spring, after which the spring became healing. Sacrifices were made to her by throwing coins, ribbons, shirts, handkerchiefs, towels or sheep's wool and thread into the water on Elijah's Friday. These items could be thrown directly into the water or left next to the inscription "for mother Pyatnica for the apron!". In Ukraine in the 19th century, the Mokrid ritual was recorded, during which a tethers was thrown into the well. In this ritual, Pyatnitsa was represented by a woman with loose hair. The saint herself was closely associated with wells, on which her icons could be placed.

There is a widespread view among researchers that Mokosh was replaced by Paraskeva Pyatnitsa in Christian times, which is why Vladimir Toporov believed that Mokosh was popular among women in the centuries following Christianization. Friday itself began to be understood as the day of the goddess Mokosh based on the dedication of this day to Venus by the Romans and Frigg by the Germans. Researcher and historian Eve Levin notes that such an approximation does not stand up to criticism, since elements of the Paraskeva cult have christian, not pagan, roots, and the cult itself is known in the south, in Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece and Romania, while Mokosh is known only from East Slavic sources. The earliest East Slavic sources speak of Paraskeva not as the patroness of women, but as the patroness of merchants. The basis of Paraskeva's association with spinning were parables depicting her as a maiden. In them, she strikes her tormentor with blindness and then heals him, making her the patroness of those suffering from eye diseases. In the 14th and 15th centuries, Paraskeva's relics rested in Ternovo and Belgrade, where local water sources were linked to her. The only function that has no obvious Christian origin is the patronage of childbirth, but according to Levin, this is a natural further development of the functions of patronizing women's labor and healing. The Church itself supported the cult of Paraskeva, although it considered its folk interpretation "heretical", arguing that on Wednesday and Friday one was not supposed to stop working, but only fast and refrain from marital relations. The correspondence between Mokosh and Paraskeva is also rejected by philologists Aleksandr Strakhov and Aleksandr Panchenko . Historian Leo Klejn, criticizing the concept of Thursday as Perun's day, points out that the Slavs borrowed the seven-day week from the Romans and Byzantines, who in turn borrowed it from the Near East, naming the days of the week after the planets and gods dedicated to them by distance in the Ptolemaic system, where the day dedicated to Venus, Friday, was the seventh. Such names of the week were later borrowed and interpreted by the Germanic peoples. The qualities of Paraskeva, Venus and Freya are opposite: Paraskeva patronizes proper female behavior, not sexual activity.

The theory of basic myth

Linguists Vladimir Toporov and Vyacheslav Ivanov created the theory of basic myth, which reconstructed the Proto-Slavic myth of a battle between a storm god and a chthonic serpent. The first deity was correlated with Perun, the second with Veles, but in addition to them there was also a female figure. Toporov believes that Mokosh was a Proto-Slavic deity and correlates this figure with her. The cause of enmity between the gods is the kidnapping of cattle, people or Perun's wife by Veles, and after Veles is defeated with an arrow, abundant rain falls on the earth. According to Toporov, Mokosh is Perun's wife, as in the lists of gods Perun opens the list and Mokosh closes it. He points to the connection between Thursday as the even day dedicated to Perun/Veles and the odd day, Friday, as dedicated to Mokosh. In a 19th century Ukrainian intimate song, there is a reference to the relationship between Mokosh and Pokhvist, whom Toporov understands as Perun as a god associated with the winds. Toporov and Ivanov supported Teodolius Witkowski's assumption, that the toponyms Muukus and Prohn, located in the same circle and correlated with Mokosh and Perun, respectively, speak of the relationship of the deities. Similarly, comparisons have been made between the toponyms Peryn and Mokošin Vrch, where both mean an elevated place, and the Baltic toponyms Perkuno kalnas ("mountain of Perkun") and Laumes kalnas ("mountain of Laima"), Laume dauba ("ravine of Laima") with the Belarussian Mokoshino boloto. By identifying the prophet Elijah with Perun, they point to the existence in folk beliefs of the prophet's companion, Saint Macrina, associated with moisture and ultimately with Mokosh. To prove the promiscuity of Mokosh, Toporov cites several parallels: the association of Paraskeva Pyatnitsa with Mokosh speaks to the promiscuity of the latter, since Paraskeva could be depicted with her hair loose. He correlated the term mokosya as a term for an evil woman with Mokosh. One of the Sermons against paganism mentions Mokosh, and earlier there is a question about debauchery with ungodly women. Friday's prohibitions correlate with the motif of a woman who lost her children as a result of violating the prohibitions, particularly the prohibition of using "fire", a decoction of ashes. In Baltic mythology, there is a myth of a celestial wedding, according to which the goddess of the morning star Aušrinė is the adulterer. Toporov then reconstructs the relationship between Mokosh and Veles: Thursday, in his view, was also the day of Veles and correlated with the odd Friday. Mokosh shares with Veles common connections to water, wool and the pit motif. Based on all this, Toporov reconstructed the myth of Mokosh's adultery with Veles and Perun's subsequent punishment of her children. For the betrayal, Perun punishes Mokosh's children with fire, since Mokosh's element, water, is not scary to her. Besides, according to Toporov, it is not out of the question that the cult of Mokosh may have enjoyed special reverence in Moscow based on the semantics of the toponym and theonym of Mokosh, as well as the fact that Moscow is mentioned for the first time in the chronicles in connection with the meeting of the princes on Friday, April 4. It has been proposed to identify Mokosh with Baba Yaga and the goddess Laima through her function as a maiden.

Leo Klein considers this theory to be a stretch and based on speculation and disputes the idea that Thursday and Friday were days dedicated to the gods. The link between Mokosh and Paraskeva has been rejected by later research. Henryk Łowmiański argues that the proximity of Perun and Mokosh is due to a literary connection and has no evidentiary value. The "Ukrainian intimate song" from the 19th century cited by Toporov is The Tale of the God Pokhvist, on the basis of which an opinion has arisen in scholarly circles that "the memory of Mokosh in Ukraine was preserved until the middle of the 19th century". Even 19th century scholars Mykola Kostomarov and Alexander Pypin refused to acknowledge the authenticity of the text. Philologist Andrei Toporkov considers the work to be a forgery created by the writer Oleksandr Shyshats’kyy-Illich. Religious scholar Andrey Beskov comments that Ivanov and Toporov showed "surprising credulity" in believing in the authenticity of the text. The hypothesis of Mokosh's marriage to Perun, like the theory of the main myth itself, has not found full support in the scientific community. Historian Roman Rabinovich wrote that Mokosh's features rather testify to a possible marriage with Veles.

Rybakov's reconstruction

According to Rybakov's interpretation, the Zbruch idol allegedly depicts Mokosh with a horn in her hand. An 1853 drawing of the idol from Joachim Lelewel's book

According to Rybakov, Russian embroideries from the 19th century allegedly depicted Mokosh in the center along with the horseman goddesses Lada and Lelya

Archaeologist Boris Rybakov supported the reconstruction of Mokosh through identification with Paraskeva and through her etymology, which is false, deduced that Mokosh's name translates as "Mother of Fate, Good Harvest", ultimately characterizing her as a virgin goddess, goddess of fertility, water, patroness of women's labor and virgin fate. He considers Mokosh identical to the West Slavic goddess Zhiva and to Mat Zemlya and correlates her with the image of the Paleolithic Mother Goddess, claiming that the cult of Mokosh originated in the Paleolithic era. On the basis of the Christian apocrypha On Twelve Fridays, Rybakov concludes that every Friday was a celebration of Mokosh. Among them were special twelve Fridays of the year, the most important of which fell on November 1-8.

Analyzing Sermon by Saint Gregory, Rybakov wrote that the author equated Mokosh and the goddess Yecate, identifying the latter as Hekate. He argued that the approximation occurred on the basis that Hekate was understood to be a deity associated with the afterlife and was surrounded by dogs, while as Mokosh in the sources she is adjacent to Simargl and the oxen, which Rybakov interpreted as a sacred dog associated with crops and rusalky, i.e. the souls of the dead. From this he deduced that the cult of Mokosh corresponded to the "middle phase of the cult of Hekate", which was agrarian.

Rybakov believed that the Zbruch idol depicted Mokosh with a horn in her hand - in his opinion a symbol of abundance associated with fertility. The female figure below Mokosh in the middle row, as suggested by Leo Klein, should be connected to the image above. Above her shoulder is a small figure, which Klein interprets as a child, spirit or soul, and on this basis concludes that this spirit is in no way related to the functions of the goddess according to Rybakov.

There are embroideries of Finno-Ugric peoples (Vepsians, Karelians, Izhorians), as well as Russian Northerners with ornaments in the form of anthropomorphic figures with raised or partially lowered arms, combined with geometrized trees, birds, horses and horsemen. Sometimes the human figures are framed by elements resembling buildings. Rybakov supported archaeologist Lev Dinces' conjecture that on these North Russian embroideries the figure between the horses represents Mokosh. Rybakov interprets the structures depicted on the embroideries as pagan temples. Ethnographer Grigory Bazlov points out the existence of other embroideries in which, in his opinion, the figures in the center have a visible beard, and what Rybakov took to be a dress, he interprets as a kaftan, concluding that the figures in the center were men. He was of the opinion that some of the figures have visible male genitalia. Folklorist Natalya Kozlova wrote that there are only two examples with a male figure, and rejected the opinion of male genitalia because "the style of embroidery is conventional and schematic", and therefore "does not give grounds for accurate attribution of details". Klejn believes that the figure in the center represents the Sun and rejects Rybakov's proposed character identifications.

Family

The sources make no mention of Mokosh's family connections. According to Vladimir Toporow, Mokosh was wife of Perun. According to theory of basic myth created by him and Vyacheslav Ivanov, Mokosh cheated on Perun with Veles and was later punished by him. That myth, however, is rejected by later scholars. Łuczyński, who also rejects the Slavic version of the basic myth proposed by Toporov as incorrect, also links Mokosh to Perun. For the hypothetical early Proto-Slavic pantheon, he reconstructs Proto-Mokosh as the daughter of Zema (Earth) and Div (Heaven), sister of Usa (Dawn), Proto-Yarilo (Morning Star), Men (Moon) and Sul (Sun). For the later stage he reconstructs Mokosh as wife of Perun, both of them being parents for Morana and Yarilo. Witkowski, on the basis of the fact that the villages of Prohn and Mukus, supposed to derive their name from Perun and Mokosh, were located only 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) from each other, concluded that the villages "must indicate cult connections".

On the other hand, historian Roman Rabinovich wrote that Mokosh's features rather testify to a possible marriage with Veles.

Neopaganism

Statue of Mokosh in Klasak, Poland

Mokosh, also known as Makosh, is revered in Slavic neopaganism as the goddess of the earth, fate, harvest and women's labor. Neopagans consider Mokosh to be a miraculous maiden, the personification of female nature and the great mother of all living beings. The fifth day of the week is dedicated to women and Mokosh. As an object of worship, she is often chosen by communities consisting mainly of women. According to Alexander Asov, one of the ideologues of neopaganism, the place and time of a person's birth are determined by the gods, and his fate is woven by the goddess Makosh. Asow claims that her sign is a ten-pointed red star on a blue background. According to neopagan author Vadim Kazakov, Veles is the son of Svarog and Mokosh, and Dola and Nedola are the younger sisters of Mokosh. Veles may also be considered the husband of Mokosh. Another husband of Mokosh may be Stribog, with whom the goddess has a daughter Kupala and a son Yarilo. Another neopagan author, the volkhv Veliimir (Nikolai Spyransky), considers Mokosh to be one of the rozhanitsy. One neopagan community, the "Kingdom of Mokosh", was named after the goddess. Two festivals of the "Kingdom of Mokosh" are dedicated to the goddess: spring Mokosh, celebrated on March 24, and autumn Mokos, celebrated on September 24. In the USC SNF, chicken is the ritual food at a feast in honor of Mokosh.

The ritual calendar of the "Veles circle" association, which includes the "Rodolubiye" community, includes the holiday of the Day of Mokosh or Earth Day. This holiday is celebrated on May 9, when Mother Earth "wakes up" after winter. However, on this day the goddess is still resting and must not be disturbed by plowing, hoeing or pile driving. The summer festival Mokosh's Svyatki or Mokrida is celebrated on July 19, when the Orthodox Church commemorates the day of Macrida. The Obzhynki, celebrated on August 15, is dedicated to the gathering of the end of the harvest, for which Dazhbog and Mokosh are thanked. The goddess is considered the Mother of the harvest and offerings of fruit are made to her on this day. The harvest festival falls on the Orthodox feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God. On this day Russians celebrated the harvest festival and the beginning of autumn days. In other parts of Russia, the harvest festival was held on August 16 at the Bread Spas. Bread Spas itself, also known as Nut Spas, Linen Spas or Water Spas, is understood in neopaganism as a festival of Mokosh, the lady of the waters, in which women should bring small offerings consisting of flax and yarn to the well. The Orthodox Church celebrates the Transfiguration of Jesus on this day. The festival of Mokoshino Poletye, or women's summer, is a series of days from September 1 to 7 dedicated to the goddess. The Day of Rod and Rozhanitsy in Slavic tradition falls on the Nativity of Mary and is a celebration of family, harvest and home. It is a time to sum up and welcome autumn, in honor of the goddess Mokosh, in this case known as the Mother of Autumn. During the Tausienʹ-Radogoshch festival, coinciding with the autumnal equinox, there is a ritual of thanksgiving for the harvest, which includes a ceremony in honor of Mokosh as she walks the fields toward the sun, where Mother Earth is presented with a ceremonial korovai cake. On this day the Svarga is closed and the gods rest until spring. The autumn day of Mokosh is celebrated on October 28, when the earth is believed to "fall" into winter sleep. After sunset, the priestesses of Mokosh, usually three in number, untangle the "sliver of fate": they put threads into a cup of enchanted water and, watching the threads unravel, predict the future. The holiday coincides with the Orthodox day of Paraskeva Friday.

The volkhvs of the "Veles Circle" also developed the Small Circle of Svarog with the dedication of each month to a specific deity, where the fifth month, May, is dedicated to Mokosh and Zhiva, and the eleventh month, November, to Mokosh and Dark Mara. Volkhv Veslav (Ilya Cherkasov) identified divine allocations related to the four seasons, days, world directions and elements. In particular, the allotments of Veles and Mokosh are associated with autumn, evening, sunset and air.

On the feast of Kupala Night, women decorate birch trees with ribbons and wreaths of flowers. These decorations are interpreted by neopagans as an ancient form of sacrifice, since the young tree is a symbol of Mother Earth, or Mokosh. Nearby, a Yarilo doll made of green branches and hammered into the ground, dressed in ornate embroidery with sacred symbolism, is prepared and given food. The doll and the tree symbolically personify the newlyweds.

Mokosh is mentioned in the Book of Veles, which the scientific community considers a forgery created by writer Yuri Mirolubov in the 20th century. In the story of pagan Bacchanalia on page 32 in the 1994 edition of the Book of Veles, following Asov's translation, "green leaves and mokoshans" are mentioned, i.e. green leaves somehow associated with the goddess Mokosh, which the translator understands as "green leaves and seaweed". In the list of pagan gods on pages 302-304, the name of Mokosh does not appear.

Today

Personification of Russia on the Russian Empire's 500 ruble banknote of 1912

Cultural scholars Harald Haarmann and Orlando Figes believe that the concept of Mother Russia is linked to the earth, "mythical femininity" and motherhood due to the original correspondence of the words Russia and earth (Russian: земля, zemlya) with the grammatical feminine gender and the greater prevalence of depicting Russia specifically as a motherland, rather than a fatherland. However, Russia's feminine identity is also drawn from folklore, Russian poetry and literary idioms, indicating the antiquity of the tradition of the connection between the feminine and the earth, which was eventually elevated by scholars to the image of Mokosh as Mat Zemlya.

Mokosha Mons, mons on Venus, is named after Mokosh.

In modern culture, the names of East Slavic deities are used as advertising names. In particular, the name Mokosh or Makosh is used as an ergonym, especially in the names of companies related to agriculture, crafts, cosmetology and tailoring, since in popular culture Mokosh is understood as the goddess of female crafts. Religious scholar Andrey Beskov notes that company naming is often based on pseudoscientific speculation.

The linguosemiotic aspect of Russian folk culture was investigated by HSE staff. In order to study it, an association survey was conducted, in which among the proposed words the name Mokosh was represented by a variant of Makosh. Respondents did not notice this change in spelling, which is probably due to the de-etymologization of the deity's name in contemporary literature containing its various variants: Maketa, Makosh, Makosha, Mokosh, Mokosha. Generally speaking, there is no established spelling for this name at present.

See also

• Hera
• Juno
• Sif
• Žemyna
• Dodola and Perperuna

References

Notes

References

Bibliography

Books

• Alekseyev, Anatoly (2004). "От составителя". Что думают учёные о «Велесовой книге» (PDF) (in Russian). Petersburg: Наука. p. 3–5. ISBN 5-02-027121-7.
• Alekseyev, Anatoly (2004). "Опять о «Велесовой книге»". Что думают учёные о «Велесовой книге» (in Russian). Petersburg: Наука. pp. 94–108. ISBN 5-02-027121-7.
• Alvarez-Pedroza, Juan Antonio (2021). Sources of Slavic Pre-Christian Religion. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-44138-5.
• Anichkov, Evgeny (1914). Язычество и древняя Русь. Petersburg: Типография М. М. Стасюловича.
• Barsov, Elpidifor (1887). «Слово о полку Игореве», как художественный памятник Киевской дружинной Руси. Vol. 1. Moscow: В университетской типографии (М. Катков).
• Barsov, Elpidifor (1894). "Об олонецких древностях". Олонецкий сборник. Материалы для истории, географии, статистики и этнографии Олонецкого края. Выпуск 3. Pietrozawodsk: Типография губернского правления.
• Belova, Olga (2004). "Неделя". In Tolstoy, Nikita (ed.). Slavic Antiquities: Ethnolinguistic Dictionary (in Russian). Vol. 3: К (Круг) — П (Перепелка). Moscow: Instytut Slawistyki Rosyjskiej Akademii Nauk. pp. 391–392. ISBN 5-7133-1207-0.
• Beskov, Andrey (2015). Язычество восточных славян. От древности к современности. Niżny Nowogród: ФГБОУ ВО «НГПУ».
• Beskov, Andrey (2015). "Русское неоязычество в свете данных эргонимики: методы и перспективы изучения". Религиоведческие исследования (in Russian) (1) (11 ed.). Moscow: 9–22. ISSN 2224-6711.
• Beskov, Andrey (2018). "Восточнославянское язычество в зеркале российской повседневности". Kultūras studijas. Zinātnisko rakstu krājums (in Russian). X. Daugavpils: Daugavpils Universitāte: 138–15 3.
• Brückner, Aleksander (1985). Mitologia słowiańska. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. ISBN 8301062452.
• Danilevsky, Igor (2004). Повесть временных лет: герменевтические основы изучения летописных текстов (PDF). Moscow: Аспект – Пресс. ISBN 9785756703450.
• Figes, Orlando (2002). Natasha's Dance: a cultural history of Russia. N. Y: Metropolitan Books. ISBN 9780805057836.
• Galkovsky, Nikolay (1913). Борьба христианства с остатками язычества в древней Руси. Vol. II. Moscow: Печатня А. И. Снегиревой.
• Galkovsky, Nikolay (1916). Борьба христианства с остатками язычества в древней Руси. Vol. I. Charków: Епархиальная типография.
• Gaydukov, Viktor (2000). Идеология и практика славянского неоязычества. Petersburg: Herzen University.
• Gerasimov, Mikhail (1910). Словzарь уездного Череповецкого говора. Petersburg: Типография Императорской академии наук.
• Gieysztor, Aleksander (2006). Mitologia Słowian. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. ISBN 978-83-235-0234-0.
• Ivanov, Vyacheslav; Toporov, Vladimir (1983). "К реконструкции Мокоши как женского персонажа в славянской версии основного мифа". Балто-славянские исследования (PDF). Moscow: Наука.
• Kalygin, Viktor (2006). Этимологический словарь кельтских теонимов (PDF). Moscow: Наука. ISBN 5-02-034377-3.
• Kelemina, Jakob (1930). Bajke in pripovedke slovenskega ljudstva (in Slovenian). Celje: Družba sv. Mohorja.
• Klejn, Leo (2004). Воскрешение Перуна. К реконструкции славянского язычества. Petersburg: Евразия. ISBN 5-8071-0153-7.
• Kosmenko, Anna (2002). Традиционный орнамент финноязычных народов северо-западной части России. Pietrozawodsk: Карельский научный центр РАН. ISBN 5-9274-0082-5.
• Kropej, Monika (2012). Supernatural Beings from Slovenian Myth and Folktales. Studia mythologica Slavica. Supplementa. Supplementum 6. Ljubljana: Založba ZRC. ISBN 978-961-254-428-7.
• Levin, Eve (2004). Двоеверие и народная религия в России. Moscow: Индрик. ISBN 5-85759-284-4.
• Levkiyevska, Yelena; Tolstaya, Svetlana (2004). "Параскева Пятница". In Tolstoy, Nikita (ed.). Slavic Antiquities: Ethnolinguistic Dictionary (in Russian). Vol. 3: К (Круг) — П (Перепелка). Moscow: Instytut Slawistyki Rosyjskiej Akademii Nauk. pp. 631–633. ISBN 5-7133-1207-0.
• Łowmiański, Henryk (1979). Religia Słowian i jej upadek, w. VI-XII. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. ISBN 83-01-00033-3.
• Łuczyński, Michał (2020). Bogowie dawnych Słowian. Studium onomastyczne (in Polish). Kielce: Kieleckie Towarzystwo Naukowe. ISBN 978-83-60777-83-1.
• Łuczyński, Michał (2022). Mity Słowian. Śladami świętych opowieści przodków (in Polish). Szczecin: Triglav. ISBN 978-83-62586-70-7.
• Mačuda, Jiří (2012). Ideologie rodnověří v názorech a praxi jeho čelních představitelů (se zaměřením na genezi a proměny obřadu). Disertační práce (PDF) (in Czech). Masarykova univerzita.
• Madlevska, Yelena (2005). Русская мифология. Энциклопедия. Moscow: Мидгард, Эксмо. ISBN 5-699-13535-9.
• Mansikka, Viljo (2016). Труды по религии восточных славян (PDF). Moscow: Форум. ISBN 978-5-00091-182-2.
• Mikhaylov, Nikolay (2017). История славянской мифологии в XX веке (PDF). Moscow: Институт славяноведения РАН. ISBN 978-5-7576-0380-3.
• Mokiyenko, Valery (1986). Образы русской речи. Историко-этимологические и этнолингвистические очерки фразеологии. Leningrad: Издательство ленинградского университета.
• Olmsted, Garrett S. (2019). The Gods of the Celts and the Indo-Europeans (revised). Innsbruck: Instituts für Sprachwissenschaft. ISBN 978-3-85124-173-0.
• Panchenko, Aleksandr (1998). Исследование в области народного православия. Деревенские святыни северо-запада России. Petersburg: Алетейя.
• Panteleyeva, Liliya; Chorobrych, Stanisław (2022). Лингвосемиотика похоронной культуры: деревня и город. Moscow: Изд. дом Высшей школы экономики. ISBN 978-5-7598-2680-4.
• Pauli, Żegota (1839). Pieśni ludu ruskiego w Galicyi (in Polish). Nakł. Kajetana Jabłlońskiego.
• Petrukhin, Vladimir (2000). "Древняя Русь. Народ. Князья. Религия.". Из истории русской культуры. Язык. Семиотика. Культура. Vol. I. Древняя Русь. Moscow: Языки русской культуры. ISBN 5-7859-0093-9.
• Petrukhin, Vladimir (2009). "Пряха". In Tolstoy, Nikita (ed.). Slavic Antiquities: Ethnolinguistic Dictionary (in Russian). Vol. 4: П (Переправа через воду) — С (Сито). Moscow: Instytut Slawistyki Rosyjskiej Akademii Nauk. pp. 338–339. ISBN 978-5-7133-0703-5.
• Petrukhin, Vladimir (2014). Русь в IX–X веках. От призвания варягов до выбора веры (PDF) (2-е изд., испр. и доп. / В. Я. Петрухин ed.). Moscow: Форум; Неолит. ISBN 978-5-91134-691-1.
• Petrukhin, Vladimir (2014). "Мокошь, Мокушь". In Mielnikowa, Yelena; Petrukhin, Vladimir (eds.). Древняя Русь в средневековом мире. Moscow: Ладомир. pp. 508–509. ISBN 978-5-86218-530-0.
• Prokofyev, Andrey; Filatov, Sergey; Koskello, Anastasiya (2006). Burdo, Maykl; Filatov, Sergey (eds.). "Славянское и скандинавское язычества. Викканство". Современная религиозная жизнь России. Опыт систематического исследования (in Russian). IV: 155–207. ISBN 5-98704-057-4.
• Pukanec, Martin (2013). Etymologický nákres slovanského sveta bohov a démonov: (náboženstva a morálky Slovanov) (in Slovak). Nitra: Vydavate Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa v Nitre. ISBN 978-80-558-0280-0.
• Rusanova, Irina; Timoshchuk, Boris (2007). Языческие святилища древних славян (PDF) (2-е изд., испр. ed.). Moscow: Ладога-100. ISBN 978-5-94494-051-3.
• Rybakov, Boris (2013). Язычество древних славян. Moscow: Академический Проект. ISBN 978-5-8291-1392-6.
• Sreznevsky, Izmail (1902). "Мокошь=Мокъшь". Материалы для словаря древнерусского языка по письменным памятникам. Vol. Второй. Л – П. Petersburg: Типография императорской академии наук.
• Strakhov, Aleksandr (2000). "Письменная фиксация и этимология (мелкие наблюдения)". Этимология. 1997–1999. Moscow: Наука. ISBN 5-02-022540-1.
• Strzelczyk, Jerzy (1998). Mity, podania i wierzenia dawnych Słowian. Poznań: Dom Wydawniczy Rebis. ISBN 83-7120-688-7.
• Szyjewski, Andrzej (2003). Religia Słowian. Kraków: Wydawnictwo WAM. ISBN 83-7318-205-5.
• Tolstaya, Svetlana (2009). "Пятница". In Tolstoy, Nikita (ed.). Slavic Antiquities: Ethnolinguistic Dictionary (in Russian). Vol. 4: П (Переправа через воду) — С (Сито). Moscow: Instytut Slawistyki Rosyjskiej Akademii Nauk. pp. 382–385. ISBN 978-5-7133-0703-5.
• Tolstaya, Svetlana (2012). "Среда". In Tolstoy, Nikita (ed.). Slavic Antiquities: Ethnolinguistic Dictionary (in Russian). Vol. 5: С (Сказка) — Я (Ящерица). Moscow: Instytut Slawistyki Rosyjskiej Akademii Nauk. pp. 150–151. ISBN 978-5-7133-1380-7.
• Toporkow, Andrey (2002). "Сказка про бога Посвистача". Рукописи, которых не было. Подделки в области славянского фольклора. Moscow: Ладомир. ISBN 5-86218-381-7.
• Toporov, Vladimir (1982). "Древняя Москва в балтийской перспективе". Балто-славянские исследования (PDF). Moscow: Наука.
• Toporov, Vladimir (1995). "Боги". In Tolstoy, Nikita (ed.). Slavic Antiquities: Ethnolinguistic Dictionary (in Russian). Vol. 1: А (Август) — Г (Гусь). Moscow: Instytut Slawistyki Rosyjskiej Akademii Nauk. pp. 204–215. ISBN 5-7133-0704-2.
• Toporov, Vladimir (1998). Предыстория литературы у славян: Опыт реконструкции: Введение в курс истории славянских литератур. Moscow: Российский государственный гуманитарный университет. ISBN 5-7281-0171-2.
• Toporov, Vladimir (2011). Мифология: Статьи для мифологических энциклопедий. Vol. 1. А – О. Moscow: Языки славянских культур. ISBN 978-5-9551-0555-0.
• Trubachyov, Oleg, ed. (1992). "*mokoš/*mokoša". Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Vol. 19 (*męs’arь – *morzakъ). Moscow: Nauka. pp. 131–134.
• Trubachyov, Oleg, ed. (1992). "*mokosъ". Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Vol. 19 (*męs’arь – *morzakъ). Moscow: Nauka. pp. 130–131.
• Trubachyov, Oleg, ed. (1992). "*moky". Этимологический словарь славянских языков. Vol. 19 (*męs’arь – *morzakъ). Moscow: Nauka. p. 149.
• Tyutina, Olga; Saberov, Rushan (2017). "Культ Рода и рожаниц в неоязыческом пантеоне". Манускрипт (in Russian) (9) (83 ed.). Грамота: 199–201. ISSN 1997-292X.
• Urbańczyk, Stanisław (1991). Dawni Słowianie Wiara i kult (PDF) (in Polish). Wrocław: Ossolineum. ISBN 83-04-03825-0.
• Valencova, Marina (2009). "Прядение". In Tolstoy, Nikita (ed.). Slavic Antiquities: Ethnolinguistic Dictionary (in Russian). Vol. 4: П (Переправа через воду) — С (Сито). Moscow: Instytut Slawistyki Rosyjskiej Akademii Nauk. pp. 321–328. ISBN 978-5-7133-0703-5.
• Vasilyev, Mikhail (1999). Язычество восточных славян накануне крещения Руси: Религиозно-мифологическое взаимодействие с иранским миром. Языческая реформа князя Владимира (PDF). Moscow: Индрик. ISBN 5-85759-087-6.
• Vasmer, Max (1986). "Мокоша". Этимологический словарь русского языка. Vol. II: Е – Муж. Translated by Trubachyov, Oleg. Moscow: Прогресс. p. 640.
• Vlasova, Marina (2008). Энциклопедия русских суеверий. Petersburg: Азбука-классика. ISBN 978-5-91181-705-3.
• Vvedensky, Anton (2023). Сюжеты о христианизации Руси в Повести временных лет и в составе Пролога. Диссертация на соискание ученой степени кандидата филологических наук (PDF) (in Russian). Moscow: Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики».
• Zabiyako, Andrey (2022). "Религия славян". In Jabłokow, Igor (ed.). История религии в 2 томах. Vol. 1. Книга 2. Религии Древнего мира. Народностно-национальные религии: учебник для вузов (4 ed.). Юрайт. pp. 236–286. ISBN 978-5-534-03389-2.
• Zubov, Mykola (1994). "Дива". In Trubachyov, Oleg (ed.). Русская ономастика и ономастика России. Словарь. Moscow: Школа-Пресс. pp. 53–54. ISBN 5-88527-066-X.
• Zubov, Mykola (2005). Слов'янські повчання проти язичництва в лінгвотекстологічному висвітленні: Дисертація на здобуття наукового ступеня доктора філологічних наук (in Ukrainian). Odessa: Odesa I. I. Mechnykov National University.
• Памятники общественной мысли Древней Руси: В 3-х т. Vol. 1: Домонгольский период. Igor Danilevsky (preface and comment). Moscow: Российская политическая энциклопедия (РОСПЭНН). 2010. ISBN 978-5-8243-1234-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
• Повесть временных лет. Translated by Likhachev, Dmitry; Trubachyov, Oleg. Aleksandra Bobrova, Sergei Nikolaev, Andrey Chernov (comments); Anton Vvedenski, Leontii Voitovych, Myud Mechev. Petersburg: Вита Нова. 2012. ISBN 978-5-93898-386-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)

Journals

• Haarmann, Harald (2000). "The Soul of Mother Russia: Russian Symbols and Pre-Russian Cultural Identity". Re-vision: A Journal of Knowledge and Consciousness. 23 (1): 6–16. ISSN 0275-6935.
• Kozlova, Natalya (2014). Kozlova, Natalya; Podkorytowa, Tatjana (eds.). "«Дракон обыкновенный», или О том, почему не состоялась одна «научная» сенсация". Встреча культур в пространстве Сибири: научные исследования, мемуаристика, художественная критика (in Russian). Omsk: Полиграфист: 191–199. ISBN 9785982360618.
• Kutarev, Oleg (2013). "Характеристика Рода и Рожаниц в славянской мифологии: интерпретации Б. А. Рыбакова и его предшественников" (PDF). Религиоведение (in Russian) (4): 170–177. ISSN 2072-8662.
• Lamansky, Vladimir, ed. (1898). "Материалы лексикографические по новгородским говорам" (PDF). Живая старина. Периодическое издание отделения этнографии имперского русского географического общества. (in Russian). Petersburg: Типография князя В. П. Мещерского: 393–408.
• Lukin, Pavel (2009). "Сказание о варягах-мучениках в начальном летописании и Прологе: текстологический аспект" (PDF). Древняя Русь (in Russian) (3): 73–96. ISSN 2071-9574.
• Lukin, Pavel (2011). "Языческая «реформа» Владимира Святославича в начальном летописании: устная традиция или литературные реthumbсценции?" (PDF). Древнейшие государства Восточной Европы: Устная традиция в письменном тексте (in Russian). Galin Głazyrin (red.). Moscow: Русский Фонд Содействия Образованию и Науке: 326–352. ISBN 978-5-91244-107-3.
• Rabinovich, Roman (2000). "Искушение «волошским орехом», или Балканские волохи и русские волхвы". Stratum Plus (in Russian) (5): 262–390. ISSN 1608-9057.
• Zubov, Mykola (1981). "О теониме Мокошь" (PDF). Этимологические исследования (in Russian). 2. Sverdlovsk: 149–160. ISSN 2310-757X.
• Zubov, Mykola (1995). "Научные фантомы славянского олимпа". Живая старина (in Russian). 7 (3): 46–49. ISSN 0204-3432.
• Witkowski, Teodolius (1970). "Mythologisch motivierte altpolabische Ortsnamen". Zeitschrift für Slawistik (in German). 15 (1). Berlin: Akademie Verlag: 368–385. doi:10.1524/slaw.1970.15.1.368.